Heirs of the half blood and peerages (England 1400s)
Shinjinee
At the death of Henry, Duke of Warwick (last male of the Beauchamp
family to hold Warwick Castle) and the subsequent death of his young
daughter Anne, his three older half-sisters (one married to the Earl
of Shrewsbury and another married to the Duke of Somerset, the King's
half-brother) were barred from inheriting any of the family lands or
the earldom because they were heirs of the half-blood to the late
child-Countess (and to the duke, her father and their half-brother).
Instead, the earldom and lands went to Anne, wife of Richard Nevill,
Earl of Salisbury. [The situation was actually complicated, because
the eldest half-sister Margaret was made heir if the Nevill earl and
countess of Warwick failed to have children].
So far, so good. The reason for this decision is given as English
common law, where the heirs of the half-blood have no look in (as far
as inheritance goes) or have few rights as long as heirs of the whole
blood survive.
On the other hand, we have at the death of Henry, Duke of Warwick and
his daughter Anne, Countess of Warwick, almost the same situation with
his inheritance from his mother Isabel, Baroness Burghersh. She had a
daughter Elizabeth by her first husband (another Richard de Beauchamp,
but Earl of Worcester) and a daugther Anne by her second husband
(Richard de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, cousin of her first husband).
Using the Warwick case as a precedence, the Burghersh barony and lands
should have gone to Anne, wife of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick.
But instead, the Burghersh inheritance went to the half-sister
Elizabeth and then to her son George Neville - whose wardship was then
given not to his aunt of the half-blood (as his heir) but to her
half-sister's husband the Duke of Somerset. Which, I understand,
precipitated a serious quarrel between Somerset and Warwick, but that
is another matter.
What kind of precedent is this where common law regarding half blood
and the whole blood is invoked for one title (admittedly the greater
title and inheritance) and not for the other title? Were decisions
actually arbitrary, with any random legal principle being invoked to
justify whatever decision the Crown made (as I suspect), or am I
missing something?
I am curious, because I find that the same principle of common law
(barring heirs of the half-blood) was invoked in disposing of the
entailed Scrope estates of the first and last Earl of Sunderland
(whatever he could not leave to his illegitimate children, that is).
That was circa 1630, I believe.
But this idea seems to have been abandoned at some point in the late
19th century, because heirs of the half blood and heirs of the whole
blood are regarded equally in awarding baronies that have fallen into
abeyance (e.g. Grey de Ruthyn).
I am just trying to puzzle out the reasoning behind the awarding of
the Warwick earldom to Anne (sister of the whole blood) but the
awarding of the Burgersh barony to Elizabeth (sister of the half
blood).
Any help gratefully appreciated.
Shinjinee
William Addams Reitwiesner
>A stupid question perhaps, but this has long baffled me.
There are several subtle distinctions which can perhaps help clear up the
confusion.
The *posessio fratris* rule (saying that relatives through the half blood
could not inherit) was only used for inheritance of land. In the Warwick
case (above), the near co-heirs of the half-blood were not permitted to
inherit the Warwick lands. The Warwick peerage dignity was not affected by
this.
>I am curious, because I find that the same principle of common law
>(barring heirs of the half-blood) was invoked in disposing of the
>entailed Scrope estates of the first and last Earl of Sunderland
>(whatever he could not leave to his illegitimate children, that is).
>That was circa 1630, I believe.
>
>But this idea seems to have been abandoned at some point in the late
>19th century, because heirs of the half blood and heirs of the whole
>blood are regarded equally in awarding baronies that have fallen into
>abeyance (e.g. Grey de Ruthyn).
The *posessio fratris* rule was never used for the inheritance of a peerage
dignity. The first time anyone ever tried to invoke it for peerage
inheritance was in 1660 in the FitzWalter case, and the claim was
disallowed.
>I am just trying to puzzle out the reasoning behind the awarding of
>the Warwick earldom to Anne (sister of the whole blood) but the
>awarding of the Burgersh barony to Elizabeth (sister of the half
>blood).
The idea that there was a "Burghersh barony" that could have been awarded
to either Anne or Elizabeth is a modern (i.e., post-Medieval) invention,
based on the idea that a writ of summons to a Parliament (the equivalent of
a summons for jury duty) created a hereditary peerage. Neither Anne nor
Elizabeth nor any of their contemporaries were aware that a "Burghersh
barony" existed.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Shinjinee
> ssen_...@yahoo.com (Shinjinee) wrote:
>
> >A stupid question perhaps, but this has long baffled me.
>
> There are several subtle distinctions which can perhaps help clear up the
> confusion.
Thank you for the explanation of those subtle differences.
Shinjinee